Improving physical function with physiotherapy assistants following intensive care unit admission (EMPRESS): A randomised controlled feasibility study.

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Rebecca J Cusack, Andrew Bates, Hannah Golding, Kay Mitchell, Linda Denehy, Nicholas Hart, Ahilanandan Dushianthan, Gordon Sturmey, Iain Davey, Zoe van Willigen, Sarah Elliott, Laura Ortiz-RuizDeGordoa, Jessica Cooper, Barbara Philips, Jenny Rains, Sally Pitts, Nigel Beauchamp, Isabel Reading, Mike Grocott
{"title":"Improving physical function with physiotherapy assistants following intensive care unit admission (EMPRESS): A randomised controlled feasibility study.","authors":"Rebecca J Cusack, Andrew Bates, Hannah Golding, Kay Mitchell, Linda Denehy, Nicholas Hart, Ahilanandan Dushianthan, Gordon Sturmey, Iain Davey, Zoe van Willigen, Sarah Elliott, Laura Ortiz-RuizDeGordoa, Jessica Cooper, Barbara Philips, Jenny Rains, Sally Pitts, Nigel Beauchamp, Isabel Reading, Mike Grocott","doi":"10.1177/17511437251328899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Early rehabilitation of critically ill patients is challenging due to limited staff resources. This study assessed the feasibility of delivering a randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy assistants delivering early protocolised rehabilitation plus usual care compared with usual care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomised feasibility study in three U.K. mixed medical/surgical intensive care units. Eligible patients were intubated and ventilated <72 h, expected to be ventilated for a further 48 h, and functionally independent before ICU admission. Patients were randomised to protocolised early rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care. Feasibility outcomes were (i) recruitment of one to two patients/per month/site; (ii) >75% of patients commencing the intervention within 72 h of ventilation with >70% interventions delivered; and (iii) blinded outcome measures recorded at three-time points in >80% of patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study delivery was compromised by the COVID-19 pandemic: 46 patients were enrolled, of which 22 were allocated to intervention. Feasibility outcomes: (i) recruitment of 0.9 patients/month/site, (ii) 90% of patients commenced interventions within 72 h of ventilation, with 166/264 (63%) of study interventions delivered: median total 22.5 min (IQR 15-35) of therapy per day in the usual care group and 45 min (IQR 25-70) in the intervention group, and (iii) the outcome assessments were performed at three-time points for 64% of survivors, 63% of which were blinded.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While delivery of protocolised rehabilitation by physiotherapy assistants is feasible, the design of a future RCT needs to consider strategies to improve recruitment and complete blinded outcome assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":" ","pages":"17511437251328899"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084218/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437251328899","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Early rehabilitation of critically ill patients is challenging due to limited staff resources. This study assessed the feasibility of delivering a randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy assistants delivering early protocolised rehabilitation plus usual care compared with usual care.

Methods: We conducted a randomised feasibility study in three U.K. mixed medical/surgical intensive care units. Eligible patients were intubated and ventilated <72 h, expected to be ventilated for a further 48 h, and functionally independent before ICU admission. Patients were randomised to protocolised early rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care. Feasibility outcomes were (i) recruitment of one to two patients/per month/site; (ii) >75% of patients commencing the intervention within 72 h of ventilation with >70% interventions delivered; and (iii) blinded outcome measures recorded at three-time points in >80% of patients.

Results: The study delivery was compromised by the COVID-19 pandemic: 46 patients were enrolled, of which 22 were allocated to intervention. Feasibility outcomes: (i) recruitment of 0.9 patients/month/site, (ii) 90% of patients commenced interventions within 72 h of ventilation, with 166/264 (63%) of study interventions delivered: median total 22.5 min (IQR 15-35) of therapy per day in the usual care group and 45 min (IQR 25-70) in the intervention group, and (iii) the outcome assessments were performed at three-time points for 64% of survivors, 63% of which were blinded.

Conclusion: While delivery of protocolised rehabilitation by physiotherapy assistants is feasible, the design of a future RCT needs to consider strategies to improve recruitment and complete blinded outcome assessments.

重症监护病房入院后物理治疗助理改善身体功能:一项随机对照可行性研究。
由于人力资源有限,危重患者的早期康复具有挑战性。本研究评估了提供一项随机对照试验的可行性,将物理治疗助理提供早期协议康复和常规护理与常规护理进行比较。方法:我们在英国的三个混合内科/外科重症监护病房进行了一项随机可行性研究。符合条件的患者中75%的患者在通气72小时内开始干预,其中70%的患者进行了干预;(iii)在bbbb80 %的患者中记录的三个时间点的盲法结局测量。结果:研究交付受到COVID-19大流行的影响:纳入46例患者,其中22例被分配到干预组。可行性结果:(i)每月/地点招募0.9例患者,(ii) 90%的患者在通气72小时内开始干预,其中有163 /264(63%)的研究干预措施:常规护理组每天治疗的中位总时间为22.5分钟(IQR 15-35),干预组为45分钟(IQR 25-70), (iii) 64%的幸存者在三个时间点进行了结果评估,其中63%为盲法。结论:虽然物理治疗助理提供协议康复是可行的,但未来RCT的设计需要考虑改善招募和完成盲法结果评估的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信